Wednesday 26 June 2013 07.02 EDT
First published on Wednesday 26 June 2013 07.02 EDT

HARD TO SWALLOW

International sport, by its very definition, represents the world's elite thrust together in high-class competition. The cream of one country's talent pitted against another's. An examination of talent bestowed upon a select few. Or at least that is international sport as we used to know it.

This week it hit home that global sporting contests rarely present themselves in their purest form. Football is no longer a game of two halves but a game of four teams when it comes to those mind-numbing friendly weeks – the habitual raft of pull-outs in the build-up notwithstanding – while rugby union internationals are very much a 22-a-side game these days than the traditional 15 version of yore. And when a squad donning England tracksuits gathered at the Oval this Monday ahead of twin Twenty20s versus New Zealand, it signified that said matches were internationals in name only.

A pair of games deemed meaningless in the grander scheme of things by the fact that England had half-a-dozen men from their strongest 20-over pool not selected because of imminent commitments elsewhere. Cricketers of the calibre of Stuart Broad, Graeme Swann, Steven Finn, Tim Bresnan, Joe Root and Jonny Bairstow, whose collective unavailability was dictated not by form or fitness but by fixtures on the horizon carrying greater kudos. No argument here that the Ashes is the pinnacle of what international cricket has to offer an Englishman, just an acknowledgement that top-level competition should feature top-level competitors.

Of course, some will argue that this is nothing new, and there are examples of under-strength teams taking to the field under national banners. For example, how many of West Indies' Twenty20 squad dispatched here for a couple of games in late September 2011 could you name off the top of your head? But the selection of weakened teams has more often than not been a by-product of contractual disputes between players and boards. Or a desire for cricketers from nations of lesser earning potential seeking a franchise pay day elsewhere.

In contrast, the decision to select a shadow side by England this week was an arbitrary one. One fundamentally made with the five-match Investec Test series against Australia in mind. Six players fully fit for selection but not picked on the basis of what Cricket Australia's head of selection John Inverarity likes to call "informed player management". Rested, to you or I. And with cricket's international scheduling not getting any skinnier, we may have been dealt a grim dose of the future. That optimum performers play together for only optimum fixtures. It is certainly something that England have been planning for: one of the mission statements of the ECB's National Performance Centre at Loughborough is to produce 25 cricketers considered 'world's best' quality. It seems a contradiction in terms.

Yet increasing the size of talent pools has become a necessity due to external demands. Ashes rivals Australia came under fire last winter when they rotated Peter Siddle and Ben Hilfenhaus out of their attack in Perth against South Africa after heavy workloads in the previous Test. Only later was it publicised that both men were troubled by injury niggles that put their ability to operate at full tilt over five days in jeopardy.

Mitchell Starc was left out of the Boxing Day Test against Sri Lanka in Melbourne on similar grounds despite the fact that he had taken 14 wickets in the first two matches of the series. Concern over bone spurs in Starc's ankle was subsequently put forward as the reason when Cricket Australia was questioned on the decision. Team management deemed the risk of the left-armer breaking down too great following consultation with sports scientists.

While neither side of cricket's greatest rivalry are likely to rotate during the next two months on anything other than form or serious injury, it is becoming the norm outside marquee events. As James Sutherland, Cricket Australia's besieged chief executive, explained in a radio interview following the appointment of Darren Lehmann as coach:

"It's about providing opportunities to players for a team that's in transition so the selectors can see, give players opportunities at international level and see how they cope with that and respond. For well over a decade the Australian selectors have adopted a policy of doing that particularly with one-day cricket. I've got no doubt that will continue but for Ashes Test matches we will day in day out be picking our best team."

During Australia's home season the issue proved as spiky as the Cancun Cactus Convention. Just as England's Twenty20 contests with the Black Caps were shoehorned into a week of what physios and medics would flag up as rest, Australia were committed to home one-day series versus the Sri Lankans and West Indies when their chief focus, a couple of years shy of the next World Cup, was the Test series in India.

Channel Nine, one of the television stations around the globe sated by wall-to-wall cricket, were left frustrated at the absence of several star players like Michael Clarke and David Warner – both of whom were sore with injuries – as well as wicketkeeper Matthew Wade from the first couple of ODIs against Sri Lanka. When stand-in captain George Bailey flipped at newspaper headlines suggesting his team were the B Grade Boys, and insinuated that Nine were talking down limited-overs cricket as a tactical move in the midst of their new contract negotiations, the station's executive cricket producer Brad McNamara suggested his flipping would be done to McDonald's burgers without the TV rights deal.

As crassly put a home truth as you could care to stumble across. Therein lies the problem. And it is a two-fold one. The international game is completely underpinned by television money, and to fulfil its saturated scheduling, those in tracksuits – who always do more to protect player welfare than the lot sporting the suits – are fighting back. Players are now expected to play more international matches in a year than ever before. Ergo, there is more chance of getting injured. Even lay physiotherapists know that competing at maximum capacity when fatigued substantially increases the risk of an individual breaking down. Hence, it's a case of rest 'em and be damned.

Seeing as we brought Australia into this, let us borrow some statistics to emphasise how cricket as a high-quality spectacle has been compromised. The baggy green cap was once a cricket artifact revered by many but worn by few. Yet these days Australia hand them out as liberally as confetti at a wedding.

Back to the start of 2013 and while Australia were engaged in limited-overs combat with West Indies, another group were in India preparing for a Test series. It meant a raft of new call-ups, and took the number of active cricketers able to refer to themselves as internationals to a whole new level. In fact, of the players that featured in Sheffield Shield matches last winter, an astonishing 56 of them have played for Australia at senior level. That statistic takes some digesting. Yes, five teams' worth in a country whose domestic game comprises six states.

Since the opening of the 2009 Ashes, Australia have given 23 Test debuts. In the same period, England, who have admittedly been more successful but have the caveat of having played a greater number of matches, have dished out 11. To think we are only one generation on from when Stuart Law and Brad Hodge, those antiquated antipodean run machines, could not get a gig. They are held in fonder regard for it. International cricket at its most eminent is a joyous battle to behold. But let us wash it down neat rather than dilute it and spoil the taste.